Ok, as we all know, the french people etc. are known for now willing to speak english, because they basicly think that their language is the only right one. (I know it is not all of them!! It is not to hunt anyone)
Now, what if English wasn't the international language, how would the english and american people be? Today we see them as the "standard" people, but what if Scandinavian was the international etc. Of Spanish?
We can only guess and I don't dare do it :P
Well actually since english people found america and australia and such, that would be the national language. Say if the french found america first, the language would be a mix since there would be more french people and whatever.
Get my drift?
English isn't the most spoken language, it's only the international language in business
I think its mandarin or something, whatever those chinese people speak :POriginally Posted by nathan123
Correct
Edited the thread before u replied, since chinese isnt a language.
Mandarin or cantonese i think
It may not be the lang spoken as first language by the most people, but it is the most universal as measured by first-and-second langs ;)
it doesn't matter.
there is no INTERNATIONAL language, there is the most spoken language, but deffinately not an international one.
if scandinavian was the most spoken language? so wat? the main language in australian and the US and UK will still be english, so i dont see how it would affect us at all.
Then you just might be posting here in "scandinavian". :music_whistling:
australia was discovered and settled by the english. for me to be speaking scandinavian, then the whole past would have to be re-written and you would have had to asume that christopher columbus and james cook were never born to discover australia or america, and then hope that some scandinavian exporer discovered them instead and filled them with scandinavian imigrants or convicts.
highly unlikely, and i doubt scandinavia even had sea voyage technology at that time.
vikings went to america before columbus, they just didn't know that they were on a new mainland (so didn't columbus tho) but they didn't speak about it either..
Why would the whole past have to be re-written? Im far from english, my country(estonia) has never had any encounters with english people, helluva lot other like Russia(for about 500 years!) tho. I speak english quite well (imo...), but i cant speak russian at all. So it doesnt matter how the history was, its how you're taught in these days. If the "international" language was scandinavian(what kind tho, norwegian, swedish, dutch, finnish or what?! and not aimed at u rish) you would have been taught english as your second language, seeing as how im taught second and third language in every school there is.
The scandinavians had enough sea voyage technology even in the 11th century to sail to America(tho they fled from America, driven by the natives) and throughout history they have been great sailors. Who do you think the vikings were? Why do you think there was a part of France named "Normandy"?highly unlikely, and i doubt scandinavia even had sea voyage technology at that time.
Aanywayy.... It wouldnt matter what the "international" language would be, because some of us would be speaking it, and the other wouldnt, it would all be just in the difference of language, either we write with the typical latin letters, or add letters like ÖÄÜÕ etc. (My apologies [spelling?] to the swedes, i dont have A with a dot on my keyboard :D)
EDIT: the letter seems more angry than it is actually is.. i just hadnt had coffee at the time of the writing
Last edited by londoahv; 25-09-06 at 03:22 PM.
I think the whole thread assumes from the beginning the past has been rewritten, so, I stick to what I said above. Speak "scandinavian" to me, worm!:blow:
you HAVE to rewrite history to stop the english from colonising america and australia. why is english the main language? because they ruled most of the world for several centuries. Example, India - the main language is obviously not english, but almost everyone there speaks english because england invaded india and colonised there for over 400 years.
Because the main trading language is english, most of the european population speak english. it is not their official language, but they still learn it to trade with toursists ect.
and second languages taught here in schools are japanese and italian... neither of thoes has any relevance to the counrty, so no scandinavian would still nto be the spoken language here.
"vikings" used warships, not suitable for long journeys so they would never have reached australia for another few centuries.
chinese isnt a language lol just fyi
In fact, its not the main language because the ENGLISH colonised america and australia. It is the main language, because when they formed the USA, they voted for what language will be the national language. I cant recall exactly(ages since i studied that) but english won by an few votes. If it hadnt, we'd be talking something else(i believe it was spanish that came in close second).
And the last time i was in India, there werent so many that could speak englsih if you went just a little off the tourist markets and such. I had quite a trouble asking the way back.
Scandinavian was brought just as an example i think. Estonia is just off Scandinavia, but we dont have any of the scandinavic languages forced for second or third language, so hell knows how the system works.
It wouldnt be needed to reach australia without conquering America. If they had took America, Australia wouldntve made much difference (no offence to you aussies tho)
Last edited by londoahv; 25-09-06 at 04:03 PM.
Rule Britannia
a poem by James Thompson
When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian Angels sung this strain:
Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves.
The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall:
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke:
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair:
Blest isle! with matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
england and spain were the "powers" of the world back then, so one of them would have won. Even if spain did win, England would still speak english, and as a result so would Australia.In fact, its not the main language because the ENGLISH colonised america and australia. It is the main language, because when they formed the USA, they voted for what language. I cant recall exactly(ages since i studied that) but english won by an few votes. If it hadnt, we'd be talking something else(i believe it was spanish that came in close second).
And the last time i was in India, there werent so many that could speak englsih if you went just a little off the tourist markets and such. I had quite a trouble asking the way back.
btw my family is from india, so i think i woud know wether or not people there can speak english. only thoes who have farms ect dont speak english.
no, i mean we are THE MOST secluded continent in the world, they simply would not have reached us.
They would speak English as their mother tongue, indeed, but seeing as how the New World was the centre of trading and immigration, the "main" language would be whatever they would be speaking. It's not because of England nor Australia that english is the main language, sadly it is due to USA. And therefore most likely English and Australian people would pretty much be forced to learn that language.
Yeah i know, but they wouldn't've had to.
By the way, is it just me or is this topic becoming just an argument between ´you and me Rishwin?
Peace.
Actually this is not at all what I meant... Nevermind, it's a quite interesting discussion.
Btw, I would say that English IS an international language. Allmost all countries learn the language. It's an easy language and it's kind of a standard.
Those who says the opposite are those who rather wanted their language to be the international one. That's what I think at least.
i highly doubt they will get the english to speak any other language, since their main language is after all english. this topic was asking if the main language of a country would be changed to that of another language, but with england especially that really isn't going to happen.
and as i said, australia will also follow because we still have the queen of england as our monarch and on our currency (we are as of yet still not "indepandant")
[QUOTE=londoahv;1605495]
By the way, is it just me or is this topic becoming just an argument between
Ok, this wasnt my point, but ok. I didnt mean that their main language would change, just that most of them would learn a second (or even a third maybe) language to be able to communicate. As for of the topic, i dont think the main language would change, maybe only over a very long period of time, (like 2 weeks :D) but tbh, i dont really care. I've had over 5 cups of coffee during this discussion and im losing my... (whats this rather queer looking contraption next to my keyboard...) ok, what were we talking about?
o.O didnt know that. Guess I've been ass-lazy in school.
What do you know, these discussions are both fun AND teaching stuff.
OK, im going out to have a cup of coffee with some friends, maybe will be back in a few hours, maybe in 24h(my schooldays real long)
Hope to discuss with you again Rishwin
Been fun!
yea lol this thread has so wondered of the main topic i dont even know wat i'm supposed to defending :P tho its been fun ;)
aye i gotta go to sleep now... i got school tomorow morning and its like midnight.
catch yall noob schoolbus tomorow :cool1:
Last edited by Rishwin; 25-09-06 at 04:52 PM.
Thats what I changed it. :dry:.
Reply With Quote